3 ms·

Because it seems that Rails is a lot more productive in the end. It's not a C# shortcoming, but rather a Rails merit.

• metaltyphoon 4y ago
  That's a stretch. I guess it depends on the dev team. Everything you have in Rails you also have in ASP. You will probably encounter a hiring problem.
• UglyToad 4y ago
  My admittedly biased view from the other side of the fence is that it may be a lot (little) quicker initially but you run up against code quality/maintainability and performance struggles far sooner. Granted in a startup worrying about next week is wasted cycles but I don't think rails is so much more productive as to justify switching away from an existing stack (whether Laravel, Django, .NET or whatever. While Rails was a paradigm shift when it was new most all other languages and frameworks have adopted large amounts of the lessons from Rails). I'd urge you to give C# a second chance
• Sparkyte 4y ago
  Rails isn't any more productive than any other languages. Unless you are talking about dead programming languages in comparison. What you need to do is figure out what the application is doing. Identify what the best language is for that task and just micro service it. Move complicated tasks into smaller services. Don't compound the complexity into a monolith whatever you do! You can get best resource utilization by containerizing an application. Most people say just multithread it Puma ruby whateves... you will go into coherency hell if your app is not designed inherentlt around the idea of puma. Just use unicorn and run it as a container. Right size it for that scale out accordingly.